read time: 289 words, just over a minute
I was watching CNN House Call this morning. One of the stories was about prescribing Adderall to overweight kids.
Adderall is an amphetamine approved for ADHD prescribing.
According to Wikipedia, the active ingredients are:
1/4 Dextroamphetamine Saccharate
1/4 Dextroamphetamine Sulfate
1/4 dl-amphetamine Aspartate (racemic amphetamine)
1/4 dl-amphetamin Sulfate (racemic amphetamine)
One of the side effects of Adderall is decreased appetite. Thus some docs are prescribing it for the “side effect” rather than the “effect”. This is what they call “off label” prescribing.
(other side effects include: sleep difficulty, headaches, aggression, abnormal thoughts/behaviors, mania, growth suppression).
So they featured one kid and his family – a “success story”. It was a dinner table scene and what was the kid drinking… diet Dr. Pepper.
Now, what’s in diet soda… primarily Aspartame (some brands are switching to Splenda).
What is Aspartame (Nutra Sweet)? L-aspartic acid and L-phenylalanine.
(Some of the side effects are: headaches, brain tumors, brain lesions, and lymphoma)
Aspartic acid – which is an amino acid – is also known as aspartate.
Now I’m not a chemistry whiz. And I haven’t dug deep. But I was tickled by the dl-amphetamine Aspartate ingredient in Adderall and the L-aspartic acid in aspartame.
I’m not sure if there is a functional difference between the two.
What I do know is that aspartame is an excitotoxin. To put it simply – it’s not good for your brain.
If you notice the side effects of both Aspartame and Adderall, you’ll see there are brain issues.
Additionally, artificial sweeteners tend to make you crave more sweet stuff and mess with your brains ability to signal satiety. (I’ve posted on this a few times).
Just a thought… rather than putting the overweight kid on a strong drug, clean up his diet.
Print this post
Share This
read time: 181 words, just a minute
One of the side effects of ADHD drugs is suppressed appetite and weight loss.
Not wanting a let side effect to go to waste, some Docs are prescribing the drugs to teens for weight loss. And here I thought they didn’t really pay attention to side effects.
That would be known as an “off label” use meaning, that’s not what the drug was approved for, there are no studies using the drug for this purpose and such uses are not monitored.
Interesting how parents* have been arrested and their child literally taken away from them and subjected to court ordered harsh medical treatment they did not want and yet it’s ok to give an overweight kid ADHD drugs and a can of soda to gulp em down with.
* Three cases in the news last year:
1. Virginia 16 year old boy with Hodkins who didn’t want another round of chemo
2. Texas 13 year old girl with Hodkins who didn’t want to do radiation after she did chemo
3. Washington mother who didn’t want her 9 month old son to have kidney surgery
Print this post
Share This
read time: 1,243 words (another wordy one), about 6 minutes
So why are there state legislatures and Governors all racing to require young girls – children – to skyrocket Gardasil to the ranks of mega blockbuster for Merck? After all, they’ve taken a bit of a fall with Vioxx – a drug they with held information about the dangers on resulting in blockbuster sales for them and deaths for innocent people.
Reportedly Virginia Gov. Kaine is going to sign it into law today and Kentucky is not far behind. And of course Texas Gov. Perry didn’t wait around for the Texas Legislature.
The notion of this boggles my mind.
Gardasil was fast tracked and approved by the FDA in June, 2006… 9 months ago and magically a swath of politicians – clearly doing no independent research and spouting the Merck line just as enthusiastically as their paid for commercials – are forcing it on young girls.
Why is this?
Let’s look at some more details about this bandwagon rage likely to turn into a regrettable scandal in the future.
(This isn’t the first post on the topic. You’re welcome to read the prior posts as well).
If you’re considering Gardasil for yourself or your child, or you know someone who is, I could not more strongly encourage you to do your own independent research.
And even then, I would wait awhile for more information to come out. This drug has been on the market a mere 9 months. Taking Vioxx as an example (and there are many other examples), it takes some time before the ramifications and – in some cases – covered up facts come out. Unfortunately, many suffer and sometimes die before that happens.
Human Papilloma Virus (HPV)
- Chronic infection with HPV is associated with 70% of cervical cancer cases.
- There are about 150 strains of HPV; 30 are associated with cervical cancer.
- About 1 in 4 US women between 14 and 59 have HPV (CDC). (Males also have HPV and spread it).
- HPV is transmitted during sexual intercourse.
- Condoms reduce the infection rate of ALL HPV strains by approximately 70%.
- Approximately 90% of all infections will be cleared by the immune system. (Poor nutrition, smoking, birth control and weakened immune system decrease your ability to clear the infection).
Cervical Cancer
- Between 1955 and 1992 cervical cancer deaths in the US decreased by 74%. (primarily because of PAP smears – early detection).
- The death rate continues to decline by about 4% a year.
- There are approximately 9,700 incidents of cervical cancer a year (in the US); about half of them in 35-45 year olds.
- There are 3,670 cervical cancer deaths estimated in 2007.
- About 1% of treated pre-cancers progress to cancer.
Gardasil
- Prevents 2 of the HPV strains (types 16 & 18) that are associated with cervical cancer.
- The CDC just last week published a study which found these two strains to be present in 3.4% of the sample population they examined.
- Gardasil was NEVER proven to prevent cervical cancer. It was tested for 4 years. No one in the test group or control group got cancer. Merck ASSUMED an abnormal pre-cancerous PAP was an indication of future cancer. So the claim that Gardasil prevents cancer has NOT been proven.
What they showed was: Gardasil prevents abnormal pre-cancerous PAP smears due to types 16 & 18 HPVs in women who had not been infected prior to receiving Gardasil.
- It is not known what effect giving Gardasil to women who are already infected with types 16 & 18 would have. Because the vaccine itself is a low dose infection, giving it to someone already carrying those strains may in fact increase their likelihood of contracting cancer.
- There was no study of the effect of Gardasil on birth defects. Five of the subjects given Gardasil around the time of conception had babies with birth defects. None of the women in the control group had babies with birth defects during the study period.
- It is not known if Gardasil will pass into breast milk and what effect that will have.
- It is not known if Gardasil effects genes and will thereby effect future generations.
- It is not known if Gardasil effects fertility.
- Merck says Gardasil should not be given to pregnant women.
- Gardasil uses aluminum and polysorbate. These have been known to cause cancer in lab animals and to alter immune responses. Aluminum is associated with increased risk of Alzheimer.
- Merck was only able to estimate the effectiveness of Gardasil for 5 years. There is no definitive guideline for it’s effectiveness, tho it doesn’t appear to be once for life.
There are two rather damning points to grasp here:
1. As stated above, Merck never proved Gardasil prevented cancer, only that it decreased abnormal PAP smears.
2. No one has ever proven HPV causes cancer. Let me explain.
In the Merck study the decrease in total pre-cancerous PAP smears was less than statistically predicted given that Gardasil prevents two HPV strains.
In other words, since Gardasil prevents pre-cancerous PAPs due to types 16 & 18 HPVs, then the total number of pre-cancerous PAPs should decrease by a commensurate percentage. Simple enough. It didn’t.
This led an FDA scientist to question the theory that HPV CAUSES cervical cancer. It’s instead possible that HPV is an “opportunistic infection” that thrives in the presence of cancer cells. It’s a chicken and egg sort of thing.
Remember, no one has ever proven HPV is the cause of cancer. That assumption was made because HPV is often (approximately 70% of the time) – but not always - present with cervical cancer. But again, just because they’re frequent companions, doesn’t prove one leads to the other.
I know we’re talking about the big scary C word – cancer. Merck is fomenting and harnessing that fear and extraordinarily misrepresenting the situation and the impact of their product. And politicians are guzzling down the kool-aid like cool water in the middle of the desert in July. Irresponsible to put it ever so lightly.
- Additionally, you’re not going to contract HPV sitting next to someone infected. It’s passed through sexual contact.
- Having HPV does not guarantee cervical cancer… not even close. It’s CHRONIC infection that’s ASSOCIATED with cervical cancer. A vast majority of people receive the virus and CLEAR it, never knowing.
- Condoms prevent 70% of ALL (not just 2 strains) of HPVs from spreading.
- PAP smears detect pre-cancer. Cervical cancer is very treatable.
Merck is blustering about saving lives. And while every life is precious, there isn’t much support for Gardasil. In my own math I could only come up with 87 lives a year at best IF every woman had received the vaccine every 5 years starting at the age of 9. Keep in mind, those 87 lives could have been saved with other measures (simpler and lest costly) as well.
In the reference stated below, the author figures it would be 1-2 deaths/year of women between 9-26 which is the age range Gardasil is approved for.
- Billions for Gardasil (plus the cost of it’s known and unknown side effects) or not nearly as much for condoms and regular PAP smears… and no side effects.
The Maryland legislature beat the drum. Maryland citizens rose up in protest and quaffed them. I don’t really know why so many legislatures are rushing to play Doctor with other people’s health. Or, in reality rushing to sell Gardasil for Merck. I can only advise you to make an informed choice that’s right for you. And to speak loudly when politicians try to usurp your choice.
Reference:
Telling the truth about the new vaccine Gardasil by Dr. Moira Terese Dolan
medicalaccountability.net/essay_gardasil.html
Print this post
Share This
read time: 808 words, about 4 minutes
Merck announced that it would suspend lobbying states to require girls – as young as 11 – to submit to Gardasil, the HPV “vaccine”. Yes, Merck was actively lobbying States to require girls as young as 9 to buy their product.
Gov. Perry of Texas has already single handedly and against the wishes of the Texas Legislature and folks of Texas made the vaccine mandatory. Somewhere around 20 states are considering it.
What’s the rush, what’s the push?
Let’s exercise our minds a bit…
- HPV – Human Papilloma Virus – is primarily a sexually transmitted virus.
- There are more than 100 types of HPV, 15 are associated with cervical cancer. Gardasil protects against TWO (Types 16 & 18) that are associated with 70% of cervical cancer cases. And also two (Types 6 & 11) that are associated with genital warts.
- Most women clear the virus, but for some women with certain risk factors and weakened immune system, it can lead to infection.
Chronic infection can – but is not guaranteed to - lead to cervical cancer IF undiagnosed and untreated.
- Death due to cervical cancer dropped 74% between 1955 and 1992. Why?… the pap smear.
- Cervical cancer is slow moving, thus if you regularly get a pap smear, you’ll likely catch any abnormalities early. Survival rate is 92% with early treatment.
- There are estimated to be 3,670 cervical cancer deaths a year. This is in primarily older women (chronic infection, slow moving cancer).
Onto pharmaconomics…
- Gardasil was rushed, er, “fast tracked” by the FDA.
- Clinical trails were with 9 to 26 year olds… there is no study on effectiveness for anyone older.
- Sample size was a MERE 2,000 (1,200 under age 16).
- There were 102 SERIOUS adverse reactions, oh – including 17 deaths.
- Research shows effectiveness for only 5 years.
- Gardasil came out in June, 2006. Through December, 2006 there were 385 adverse event reports made to Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Additionally, the number of reports per month has increased every month. (Reporting is voluntary and generally only a minority of cases are reported).
- Adverse reactions include: numbness and loss of sensation, facial paralysis or Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
- Merck is quoting costs of $360 for the vaccine. This of course does not include the Doctor visit. I’ve read Docs are charging more or not offering it because their reimbursement does not cover their cost.
- Ok, I hippidy hopped over to the 2000 census. Between the ages of 10 and 24 (Gardasil is being recommended for 9-26 year olds), there are 59,711,963 folks. I’m going to assume half are female (because I don’t feel like hunting for the exact number). That makes 29,855,982 females. At $360 each… $10,748,153,340. Yup, $10.7 Billion.
Ohhhh Butttttt, that’s just the U.S. You see because of pap smears, cervical cancer in the US is around 1%. But WORLDWIDE it’s MUCH higher - pap smears aren’t well used in developing countries. (worldwide deaths estimated at 273,500/year; diagnoses 493,000).
- For the quarter ending 31.Dec.2006, Merck had sales of $155 Million for Gardasil alone.
- The estimated number of cervical cancer deaths for 2007 is 3,670 in the US. HPV is associated with 70%… that makes 2,569.
Gardisil acts against 2 of the 15 types of HPV associated with cervical cancer (13.3%). Therefore, assuming women had been receiving this “vaccine” every 5 years for the past 60 years, that would statistically have prevented 342 deaths. (I say every 5 years, because the vaccine is shown effective for only 5 years. I say 60 years because that would cover women who are currently 70 years old and started receiving the vaccine at age 10).
Keep in mind that there was a 74% reduction in cervical cancer deaths attributed to pap smears. Oh yea, there aren’t any adverse side effects with pap smears. Oh yea, they don’t cost as much.
OK, let’s chain a few things together…
-> Cervical cancer is largely positively effected by pap smears.
-> Keeping a strong immune system through good nutrition and lifestyle choices dramatically decreases susceptibility to infections of all kinds as well as numerous diseases.
-> The trial sample group for Gardasil was tiny and short term. The REAL “experiment” is happening now with the people voluntarily taking it.
-> There were adverse effects in the trial and there are adverse effects being reported now “in the field”.
-> Whether or not you want (or want your daughter to) become part of Merck’s experiment is your choice. BUT, do inform yourself. I’ve seen the commercial for the product. It exaggerates the situation and then exploits fear.
-> WOMEN: get smeared regularly… maybe we should make pap smears mandatory.
For all those parents and concerned citizens that held up a big red STOP sign – I salute you. It pushed Merck back.
Here are a few more balanced resources:
________________________________________________________
Print this post
Share This
read time: 261 words, a minute or so
Well that didn’t take long.
Texas is the first state to mandate girls (11 – 12 years old) to get Garsasil, the Merck vaccine for Human Papilloma Virus (HPV).
There’s data that suggests roughly 70% of all cervical cancers are caused by HPV.
The vaccine – which supposedly prevents HPV – has been on the market for quite a short time… a month or two. The cost is about $360.
Maybe the vaccine would dramatically lower cervical cancer.
Maybe it works – without extensive and serious side effects.
Maybe not.
People seem to believe if the FDA approves something, it’s safe.
They approved the Vioxx and the other Cox 2 inhibitors. And there’s a plenty others.
Semantically speaking, people associate vaccine with safe cure.
Not always.
People who get the HPV vaccine at this point are paying to be part of an experiment.
This vaccine has hardly proven itself with the test of time.
Why REQUIRE it now.
If a problem is discovered sometime in the future, can every affected girl/woman sue the state of Texas.
Reducing cancer is a good thing.
Why not ban all smoking. We know smoking is a cause of lung cancer.
HPV is sexually transmitted.
Not every 11 year old girl has sex.
Why should every one be forced to “test” this vaccine?
How come the parents can’t decide?
And… how the Texas Governor (Perry) completely by passed the legislature, went against the will of the Texas people who elected him and slammed this through?
Texans - fight back. Ask your doctor for an affidavit stating you object to the vaccine.
Print this post
Share This
read time: 790 words, about three minutes
Michael Petit, author of a new book “Homeland Insecurity … American Children at Risk,” lays out an interesting set of data comparing kid’s health in each state to how the state voted in the 2004 election.
To determine the kid part, he used 11 statistics measuring health, including insurance coverage and prenatal care.
The top ten: Wisconsin, New Jersey, Washington, Minnesota, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont, Iowa, and New Hampshire. Only Iowa voted Republican.
The bottom ten: Wyoming, Georgia, Arkansas, Alabama, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Louisiana and Mississippi. All Republican.
In fact 24 of the bottom 25 are red states.
That’s ummm, significant.
Timothy Jost, professor of health care law at the Washington and Lee University School of Law says:
“States that tend to be politically and economically conservative have less inclusive medical assistance programs. So, it would make a great deal of sense that states that are Republican have conservative social and economic policies that lead to a decreased health status for poor children.”
How does this jive with that No Child Left Behind platform? But I digress.
Of those blue states Jost says:
“More liberal states probably have better food stamp, public assistance, housing and education programs.”
Back in early December, 2006 I wrote about an annual report on America’s Health Rankings.
The top 5 states for health were: Minnesota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Hawaii and Connecticut… all blue states, four of them in the top 10 for kid’s health.
Jost believes the solution is to get people insured:
“That is not going to happen through the private sector; the government is going to have to step in. It is a political problem, and it needs to be solved politically.”
Perhaps that is A solution. Is it the BEST solution?
I dunno.
Health care costs big bucks. I just made my quarterly payment and by golly, it’s gone up again. And I don’t have fancy insurance.
And my experience has been it’s not necessarily easy to get decent health care, EVEN IF you have insurance.
The Universal Health Care platform is popping up quite a bit these days.
In California… where I live and pay taxes… they’re talking about it. 6.2 million folks are uninsured in California. We’re talking about a lot of oranges and artichokes there.
But beyond that, is “having health insurance” the magic pill (sorry, couldn’t resist the pun). Yes, I realize there’s utility in insurance. But for the most part, health insurance is sick insurance and health care is sick care.
Do you go to a doctor when you’re well?
In the U.S. we spend significantly more on health care and yet, we’re not the healthiest… by far.
Let’s throw another piece of data into the conversation…
For every $1 spent on “wellness”, $3 is saved on “health” care.
World changer people were hanging out in Davos Switzerland this week at the World Economic Forum.
Back in 2000 Bill & Melinda Gates and a few others formed GAVI - the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization. GAVI has immunized 138 million kids for preventable diseases. Darn big numbers.
The estimate is the program has prevented 2.3 million deaths and heck of a lot of illness. They’ve spent $1.5 billion. That’s under $11 a kid and about $650 a life saved.
One of the changes they’re going to make is in the personnel sticking all those needles in all those kids. They’ve invested in training and funding doctors to do the work. Seems those doctors move onto other opportunities. They will now instead train paramedics. Lowers the costs of training and the thought is turnover will also be lowered.
It’s true, a paramedic is not able to do as much medically as a doctor, but they can dispense vaccinations. GAVI doesn’t have a timid goal. They’d like to vaccinate everyone who needs to be. If they cut their costs, they can vaccinate more people.
How much does it costs to have PE in schools? Are we saving a dollar only to incur a $3 expense elsewhere?
I bet a year of PE costs less than a round of chemotherapy.
Instead of focusing on “Universal Health Care” in the form of health insurance, why don’t we spend our resources on Universal Well Care with education on nutrition, exercise, lifestyle and stress relief and management and other programs.
Sooooo many “health” care dollars are now being spent on preventable lifestyle diseases. Just because you have insurance should you do your best to use it?
Would you burn down your house because you have homeowners insurance?
It costs less to prevent than to treat. You get what you focus on.
Print this post
Share This
read time: 129 words, about a minute
Lovely. The FDA has now approved a prescription drug by Pfizer that suppresses a dog’s appetite. After all, dog obesity is increasing right along there with human obesity. And the same diseases are cropping up… diabetes, heart disease, arthritis.
But soon, you’ll be able to give your dog Slentrol - a selective microsomal triglyceride transfer protein inhibitor. It suppresses appetite and blocks fat absorption.
Oh and this drug will have a “strong” warning that it is for dogs, not people.
I don’t know. I’m betting the warning won’t quite be enough in which case a human may experience abdominal pain, diarrhea, flatulence, headaches, nausea and vomiting. Hmm, that could suppress their appetite and then, they’ll LOSE WEIGHT.
Or, stop giving the dog crappy food, too much food and exercise with him!
Print this post
Share This
oy,
As reported on Bloomberg:
Pfizer has spent $1 billion on research into torcetrapib, including a study of the drug’s ability to prevent death and heart complications, according to the company.
And you thought government studies were, umm, ‘a waste of tax payer money’.
Exercise is free. And diet - you gotta eat anyway, why not eat well.
One BILLION dollars for a drug that results in more deaths than doing nothing.
Print this post
Share This
